10 Sqn Disbandment

[goldcup]

It was announced today by the Staish at the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase that as of 14th October 05, 10 Sqn will be disbanded. 101 will remain as the VC10 Sqn, and the groundcrew will rejoin the aircrew under the command of OC 101. It was also confirmed that 3 more VC10s (2 K4s and a C1K) will be scrapped this year.

Looking forward to an ENORMOUS pi$$ up on the 14th, but clearly very sad that shiny 10 won't get to see 40 years of service with the VC10.

So who will get to be the first FSTA Sqn.....? (assuming a. it ever arrives and b. there's more than one sqn left in the RAF by then).

[ZH875]

Good job we have a surplus of Tankers.:\

[BEagle]

The very best of luck to all on 'Shiny Ten' - after all their hard work of recent years, they must feel totally gutted.

And throughout all their prestigious years of AT, they maintained a safety record unmatched by any airline. There is probably no-one in today's RAF who joined before 10 Sqn's VC10 came into service.

I raise a glass to you all!

But scrapping some of the RAF's most useful assets - that astonishes me. Are they just too clapped-out or is there simply not enough money to keep the dear old ladies going?

FSTA?

F*cking Short of Tankers - Again!

[Well Travelled Nav]

Well it's official, i'm a jinx.

Was on 206 Sqn, now it's gone.

Was on 10 Sqn, now it's going.

Am posted to 8/23 Sqn next. Good Luck.

Are there any more nominations as to where I should ask the poster for instead?

WTN

[Phoney Tony]

Why not try a posting to MoD!!!!

[Navaleye]

Farewell 10Sqn. My hopes of getting a ride on a VC10 shrink daily!

[Engineer]

Not a lover of 10 Sqn, but nice to see that 101 Sqn will become an intergrated squadron again. As it was when I first joined in March 83. Good luck to present and future 101 Sqn air/groundcrew :ok:

[Tonkenna]

Oh well... guess I'll have to dig out my old 101 T'shirts. Very sad, but not that much of a suprise. Which ever Sqn went was going to be the (tempory??) end to a great history. Lets hope she becomes an FSTA sqn...

Tonks:(

PS Hope you lot had a good couple of beers in the Arrow today... would have loved to have had one here... but can't:sad:

[MrBernoulli]

I had a heads-up a while back that this was going to be the result of the VC10 draw-down (business speak bollocks). Served with both 10 and 101 and had some fun times ..... and a few not so ...... well, lets not go there.

Scrapping K4s is a mortal sin. Thank goodness there were centre-line tankers around for me to enjoy prodding in the VC!0. BEST fun a VC10 pilot could have IMHO! I know they are not there for my entertainment but K4s are valuable commodities for refuelling Hercs, Nimrod, E3 et al. There won't be many VC10s left, of any mark, soon and there is STILL no firm replacement in the pipeline. I feel a crisis brewing ...........

[BEagle]

And should a couple of K3s be....otherwise engaged, that would leave a grand total of what - 3 or 4 centreline hose VC10K3/K4s to meet all the rest of the RAF's requirements. Assuming they were serviceable! Plus the TriShaws, of course.

Every time there was another Trust-me-Tone war, we AARIs would work our parts off getting the sqn crews qualified in Day/Night receiver work. Not one word of thanks or congratulations from the MoD-box of course.....

WHICH I HOPE YOU PSOs WILL REPORT TO YOUR 4-STARS IN THEIR DAILY PPRUNE BRIEF!

Why did we have to do it every time? Because the sqn crews were never given sufficient hours to keep current in receiver work even though it was well-known that it was vital for all captains to be day/night receiver qualified in times of political tension.

And as for this load of utter garbage from the MoD website:

VC10 crews transfer to Tristar Fleet

Six crews from the RAF’s ageing VC10 air to air refuelling fleet are to be transferred to the more efficient Tristar aircraft.

The move means an extra 2000 flying hours for the more capable Tristar and will allow a reduction in the VC10 fleet from 16 to 19 aircraft.

As a consequence the VC10 fleet can now be restructured into from two squadrons to one. From mid-October the 16 aircraft will reform as 101 Squadron meaning 10 Squadron will be disbanded.

Both the VC10 and Tristar fleets are based at RAF Brize Norton so the transfer of the 36 crew from the VC10 fleet to the Tristar fleet will have no impact on the number of Service posts at the base.

Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram, said:

“This relatively small change will allow the RAF to make better use of our more effective and efficient Tristar aircraft.”

“This is an excellent example of how a relatively small change can deliver a more efficient and flexible RAF without a significant impact on capability.”

Does 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf now work at MoD PR? Sorry, 'Corporate Communications' :yuk: :yuk:

[D-IFF_ident]

Would have been nice to see Shiney 10 simply change frames upon the introduction of the FSTA. I can't understand the logic of 'drawing down' the fleet with no firm replacement. That said, I expect this announcement will be shortly followed by another announcement - along the lines of actually signing a deal for FSTA. No doubt the contract is the only thing holding-up the introduction of the A330 anyway - and the reasons for that are obvious; it's not financially sound for either party to meet the demands of the other.

The reason for scrapping 3 now? I'd bet it's to keep the rest airborne. 12 spare engines will soon get swallowed-up into the system, then there are all the other parts that are no longer manufactured, I expect there's jets sitting waitng for some of those bits already.

On the subject of receiver AR, Beags, I took a look at the USAF tanker pilots' course. Trip 1 on the OCU includes receiver AR - it's a monthly requirement for BTRs, every single Captain is day and night qualified and most of the Co-pilots have been trained too.

Still, they just have to do a bit of close formation don't they? Nothing beats jousting at 300 miles per hour. "Like taking a running f*** at a rolling donut" isn't it?

Aye aye

[Roguedent]

Damn it, will have to TipEX a 1 on to all my badges and t-shirts now, unless they give me some for free.:\ Shame to lose another Sqn, but in essence we were working as one anyway. As for the scrapping of Jets, spares seem to be the latest rumour, but why do they have to scrap the better Jets, there are others in the fleet that are less serviceable!!:confused:

BEagle: I agree with you on the PR front, being FAR south at the moment, I am not sure of the state of the Tri motors, but when I left, they were going through a black spot with serviceability, and the mighty TEN was picking up the pieces.:ok:

[Tonkenna]

It is such a shame that we could not hold on untill the 40th anniversary of the VC10 in RAF service next Jul. That is a milestone worth celebrating and doing it as part of 101 (no disrespect to them as I have more time on 101 than 10) will not really be the same.

Roguedent... don't be tight... get a badge and be proud of whatever Sqn you are lucky enough to serve on :ok:

[BEagle]

Dear Ingram,

The ".....the more efficient Tristar aircraft" can only refuel one receiver at a time and is limited in the number of aerodromes from which it can operate. So how, you utter f*ckwit, can it possibly be 'more efficient' in the AAR role?

At its peak, the VC10/TriStar fleet could theoretically put 60 simultaneous hoses into the sky. Now it'll be down to around 20 at most........

FSTA will be a minimum of 4-5 years from the moment the MoD stops dicking around and signs the contract until its ISD. So that'll be 2009-2010 before the depleted tanker force receives new equipment.

6 crews transferring? How many will actually be transferring to the airlines instead, I wonder?

[cartoon ranger]

Anybody know what the PVR/NGR rate is like on the ten squadrons at the moment? I know of three or four about five months ago but wondering if thats increased since then.

[Art Field]

It's not economical with the truth, it's lying. I thought they lied, I guessed they lied, now this is a subject I really know the facts about and they are telling porkies by the ton.

Sad for 10, at least the better squadron remains(had to say that) but their world-wide experience was invaluable to us in the early days of 101's VC10 time for which we thank them.

[wf1]

maybe they will form a nine aircraft historic display team (take cover)

[MaximumPete]

I think was 10 Squadron that took GAPAN flying last November in a VC10.

An excellent day out and we were made very welcome on the flight deck.

Good luck chaps/chapesses

MP;)

[50+Ray]

When the Ten was really new and shiny I was a much impressed Air Cadet, my first ride in one was much appreciated. Hard to believe that was almost 40 years ago. Sad to see them go without long overdue replacement.

[6foottanker]

I know Ingram's fairly new to the job, but his cronies should have a handle on things by now - how the hell can they claim the Tri* to be a better tanker than the 10??? Not much wonder the guys are leaving in droves! It's clear our lords and masters have no idea at all.

Guess we'll just have to send off the Sqn with a bang! Looking forward to the next (last) 5 months!!:E

[bakseetblatherer]

Bye bye 10.
As has been said before the RAF does have a huge excess of tankers, I can remember many times as prog trying to think what to do with all these excess tankers offered and how on earth I could keep the sqns hours down with such largesse especially when I was dealing with the tornado's excellent servicibility! I agree with 6'tanker, how on earth is a tri* better than a 10? No insult to the large load carrying * guys but when you are in a typically overloaded and underpowered brit jet 2 hoses rule! Trying to get a pair (let alone a 4) through a single hose is a nightmare, our jets don't suck enough -fuel that is!
Anyway not that it effects me anymore......

ps is the tanker staying in the FI? Have fun LIMA fit I reckon!

[BEagle]

IIRC, there is no single hose plan for tanking 3 Jaguars from the Azores to Canada with a single tanker. Certainly when I did it with 3, the only option available if we lost a hose was to divert the whole formation.

But that, of course, is no longer a problem because the Jaguar is going out of service.....

But how many other trail routes have tricky, or impossible, single hose plans if more than 2 receivers are to be trailed?

[exvicar]

Beagle

From what I hear there is now a superb team of AARCs (or is that ARCs depending on wether there is a y in the day) based at the super secret Oxfordshire airbase. Which is just as well, as I hear that the refuel rates of our super new fighter are not much better than the Jag.

Thoughts go to all on 10Sqn, gutting news. I cannot believe it was easy for the Staish to lose one of his sqns. At least the engineers will now, once again, be part of a proper sqn. Should make for interesting beer calls and a few more well travelled 'souvenirs' in the bar.

[opso]

how the hell can they claim the Tri* to be a better tanker than the 10??? To be fair to whoever wrote the bit on the MOD website, they didn't claim that at all. They claimed the Tristar to be a more efficient aircraft which is easily supportable - if you want to move 220 squaddies from the Gulf to Hannover, which of the 2 aircraft could achieve the task the quickest? Or with the least fuel burnt (and so is the cheapest)? Or without limitations to the approach times at Hannover owing to the noise bans on VC10s... So the statement was supportable.

That said, it is easy to say that a Smart car is more efficient than an Audi A4, but if I were a sales rep doing 40K miles per annum, I'd tell you where to shove your Smart car. Judging by its size, it would probably fit too!

The upside of all this looks like being that the reduction of 3 aircraft (or the increase in spares by 3 aircraft's worth!) may even increase the number of serviceable VC10s available each day for a while.

[BEagle]

opso, the MoD website states:

"Six crews from the RAF’s ageing VC10 air to air refuelling fleet are to be transferred to the more efficient Tristar aircraft.

The move means an extra 2000 flying hours for the more capable Tristar and will allow a reduction in the VC10 fleet from 16 to 19 aircraft."

Now, the specific reference is to air-to-air refuelling. Unless one has the mentality of Bliar, the 'more efficient' reference is clearly implied to be within this context - and nothing at all to do with the TriStars undoubted superiority in moving passengers around in larger numbers further than can the VC10C1K.

Personally, I consider the loss of dual hose aircraft to be very serious - unless there are insufficient bits left in museums, shipyards and blacksmiths to fix the old 10s with, of course.

Time will tell - and hopefully it'll act as a catalyst for the FSTA programme to move ahead less glacially than it currently is!

[Roland Pulfrew]

A sad moment for 10 indeed, and for the VC10 fleet in general. I hope all at BZN enjoy the final few months (but at least Her Majesty's finest VC10 Sqn lives on) and the engineers will get to be back where they belong - with the squadron!:ok:

Good to see the IPT still trotting out the old 'spares' argument. I seem to remember that was used to justify the scrapping of the K2s! Did anyone actually remember seeing an improvement in availability and/or serviceability?

Anyway isn't holding spares against the principles of RAB? :yuk: Surely we must sell the 'to be retired' airframes to the lowest bidder, who will then convert the ac into spare parts, and who will then sell us those spare parts, via a 'just-in-time' stores system, at a vastly inflated price as and when we need them (or more usually after we need them). This will keep the spares off the balance sheet so that we do not incur depreciation and cost of capital charges. Accountants w:mad: rs

[Widger]

The next message will be, that if we need to go to any area that requires AAR support "we can rely on US assets"!

[BEagle]

Which would mean either BDA time - and I can sssure anyone who has never had the pleasure of that, that it's 'cking difficult. As the very brave Italian AF proved on night 1 of GW1......

Or else hiring the services of the good ol' boys of Omega Air flying prehistoric 707s.

When the spares support of your fleet is so awful that you have to cannibalise perfectly good jets to keep the rest going, it's time to quit......

Incidentally, when the last VC10K2 was flown to RAF St Athan to be turned into pots, pans and razor blades, as dutiful co-pilot to my captain, herself the grand-daughter of the chap who'd brought the aircraft into service with BOAC, I phoned Brize on my spiv-phone to report the serviceability. It was, of course, fully serviceable........

MoD-box, cut the bolleaux and shift your ar$e on FSTA.

[Mr C Hinecap]

BEagle

Just for edjumacation and to further your 1st point in this thread, I share an office with a man who has been in the RAF longer than the VC10 has been in service. He has some of the greatest stories and has seen many wheels invented many times.

[Ray Darbouy]

>There is probably no-one in today's RAF who joined before 10 Sqn's VC10 came into service.

Darbouy touches forelock and steps forwards. "Thou callest, Sire"?

[Roguedent]

Opso,

'...They claimed the Tristar to be a more efficient aircraft which is easily supportable - if you want to move 220 squaddies from the Gulf to Hannover, which of the 2 aircraft could achieve the task the quickest? Or with the least fuel burnt (and so is the cheapest)? Or without limitations to the approach times at Hannover owing to the noise bans on VC10s...'

This statemant is true most of the time, but the nice Shiny Jet has had its own bad U/S periods, and the Jet to pick up the pieces...you guessed it, the Mighty 10. The approach times at Hannover are in force for all Jets that may ring the bells, not just the VC10. The last T/O time is around 2100z. Yes we are the loudest, but normally out of Hannover we are light (coming back to the Uk), so our take off procedures mean we don't ring the bells to get fined!! ( or we could do what the russians used to do...and fly around them!!).

On another note, because I am out of the loop, does anyone know when the 2000hrs are going across to the TRI, or are they going to do the same thing as before and transfere them across immediately. Thus giving the TRI more tasking than the crews can handle before the new crews come online?:\ :confused:

Plus I have given in, and will be buying new badges and T-shirts. Only after the Party though!!:ok:

[haltonapp]

The RAF does not seem to have got much of a return on the money it spent on converting the super VC10 to K4 standard. A project managed by BWOS, as usual a bit late and overbudget. Mind you the project team in MOD didn't do too well, they specified a navigator station but forgot to request a seat for said crewmember. I remember we had quite a laugh when we went to Filton to see the fit of the first a/c and saw the supernumary seat, not one to sit on for 5+ hrs, mounted on a turntable!
As an aside the managers were removing the fire extinguishers as soon as we saw where they were mounted because otherwise they would be nicked.
Happy days at Filton and at FR in Poole with John M. Walking past a pub that was open was not an option, John always thought that Snake E would be inside and would report him for letting the side down!
Sad to find out that shiny ten had to go, I have good memories, and bad, of my time on 10 and 101, the 10 was always a great a/c, be it a very noisy one. As the famous Wally Walters used to say: " VC10s are rocket ships they are flown by red hot sh*ts, and they make a mighty ROARRRR"

[jockgi]

I had 12 great years at BZN mostly on the 101 rocketship with John M and the like. As soon as an end of era bash is organised please advise, and I will jet home from the sun and sand for the party!!

Hi to all :cool:

[6foottanker]

Of course, given that 2 of the jets to be scrapped will be 3 hose jets (K4s), there will be a further reduction in the capacity to refuel the likes of Nimrod or E3s, or as a spare hose for the mini jets. I guess flexibility is no longer a factor for the MOD.:\

[pigsinspace]

The ".....the more efficient Tristar aircraft" can only refuel one receiver at a time and is limited in the number of aerodromes from which it can operate. So how, you utter f*ckwit, can it possibly be 'more efficient' in the AAR role?

ever heard of international airports?

when overseas the mighty T* can land at larger airfiels they dont have to be small military aerodromes as you call them.

AND if tanking in UK airspace the T* will make it home with lots of gas to spare....

sorry to burst your bubble old chap.

[BEagle]

Sure the TriStar can work from International Airports. Which is fine if they happen to be where the task is.

If the TriStar had wing AAR pods, I would concede that it is more capable than any previous RAF tanker. But it doesn't, so as a tanker it is cannot possibly be as efficient in dealing with a thirsty 4-ship (when there's one around which is servceable, of course) than a VC10 or any other 2/3-hose tanker can.

On an AAR trail, the TriStar has to take off with a single hose plan. Which means supporting TypHoons across the Atlantic could be somewhat thought provoking. Whereas at least the '10 uses a 2-hose plan as standard and only has to revert to single hose in the event of a degrade. There are some combinations of route/receiver for which no single hose plan is available for more than 2 receivers; I think I'm right in saying that a VC10 can support 3 Jaguars from Lajes to Halifax whereas a TriStar could only support 2 - purely because there is nowhere for a 'C' bracket before the next 'A' bracket is needed at one point along the route. There's little point in carrying a huge amount of fuel if people can't actually get at it when they need it!

Does Ingram know that the TriStar cannot use both hoses simultaneously? Or even begin to understand the consequences? I doubt it...

Sorry to burst your bubble, youngster.

[pigsinspace]

Thought provoking or not It has been done with the Typhoon and numerous other types...

stop crying and griping the VC10 is dying (so will the T* eventually), the govt are scrapping 3 so learn to live with it, times change, move on, this is the 21st century the vc10 is very 20th century.
I think we all agree a new tanker is needed but unless we buy of the shelf from usa we will have to wait for the govt to spend money...

and if they buy a multi point or single point tanker it is not up to you or me, we just have to utilise whatever they give us to use...my guess is we will not see a new tanker for 10 plus years and I personally will be long clear of my blue/green/desert suit....and to tell the truth when I leave I will not give a monkeys.

[D-IFF_ident]

Dearest Pigs,

I'm not so sure that the esteemed gentleman is 'crying and griping the VC10 is dying', so much as suggesting that the RAF is releasing a substantial amount of force multiplying/force extending/force enabling Strategic AND Tactical capability with not so much as a contract signed for a replacement. Remember that the PFI can still be cancelled at any time at the moment, by either party.

No matter how anyone views the current Defence cuts/realignment/Increases in defence spending etc, yes, we need Air To Air Refuelling Tankers. And we need them now, not in 10 years time. Your suggestion that we could buy some 'of the shelf from usa' startles me. As an operator of American equipment I get to see just how much they need the assets too. Believe me, I don't think they have many 'on the shelf' to be selling, with the collapse of the last Boeing deal there are a few DC10-30s sitting in the Mojave that are looking quite appealing just now. And don't think the USAF will bail us out with deploying our fighters either; they're too busy already and I'm guessing a retrofit of a UAARSI on the Typhoon won't happen.

I'm happy for you that you will no longer have a care about the defence of our nation after your retirement, here's hoping that you have no reason to care, and that the world will once again be filled with free love, and perhaps some pink bunny rabbits too.

Or Monkeys, if you prefer.

I do give a monkeys, I wany to know how we're going to get our fancy new fighters into austere airfields thousands of miles away, and how they will operate from such.

[BEagle]

Well put, D-IFF_ident!

The US does indeed need to call heavily upon its organic AAR assets - and frequently needs those of other nations to support USN/USMC aircraft in OOA operations.

The most quickly affordable replacement tanker aircraft would be the A310MRTT. Indeed, a few years ago before the PFI nonsense started, it was anticipated that both VC10 and TriStar would be replaced by a fleet of 25-ish A310MRTTs.

The GAF will soon have 4, the CF will soon have 2. And there are quite a few A310s around the world which could be converted into 157t MAUW A310MRTTs with 72t of fuel, a cargo floor and upper deck cargo door and a 5.4t/hr burn rate on typical AAR towline operations. A most efficient aircraft - though not quite in the same league as the 230t A330MRTT with its 111t of fuel!

Airbus A310 MRTT - Worldwide Mission Support

PSOs, ANOTHER ONE FOR YOUR MORNING BRIEFS!

[Roguedent]

Dearest Pigsinspace,

I think its you who should move from the 21st back to the 20th. The RAF work in there to keep things simple, for people like me I reckon. Name me a piece of equipment, that flys, which was brought into a FULLY operational role in the 21st century. :confused:

We are not debating whether the VC10 is dying, its been doing that for years. What we are saying is that the tanker fleet is now less flexible than before. The Tristar does little to no home/abroad AAR. Thus the VC10 will just have to cope, as we always do. :cool:

In response to your 'buy it off the shelf' quote. What are we supposed to buy. An aging boeing!!! :} How about we wait for the newer A330, and keep the VC10 going till then?:D Sounds fair? To me the Govt are daft, but not daft enough to notice that single point tankers are v ineffective, whereas multipoint tankers are the way ahead, oh look the A330 will be multipoint !! With things like fighters, yes we should buy from the shelf, but with tankers, we were always miles ahead of the americans, lets keep it that way. :)

[6foottanker]

pigsinspace,

I think that's where you've been hiding for the last 40 years.

Our new tanker, potentially the A330, will have 2 wing hoses. That's not because they look pretty and symmetrical, but because, faced with a multi-jet formation, it is proven to be far more efficient to have more than one hose in use at any one time.

As for buying off the shelf from the US, what do you suggest? The KC135, which is nearly as old as the 10, and in the process of being replaced, much as the 10 is. Or the venerable KC10, which is also ageing, in need of an urgent update or replacement. Oh, and they are both Boom...unless....Recent memory reminds me of a pair of GR4s over the hot, sandy place who tried to refuel from a KC10 hose unit in a thunder storm, got properly spooked by electric arcing and had to shout for help from the good old 10. Yet another VC10 to the rescue!

As operators, we are not advocating multi point tankers cos we feel like pi$$ing anyone off, it's because we know that it works better, on towlines and on trails. It's ill informed people like you that sadly make the decisions in the MOD, which is why the RAF is being bled dry of any capability it ever had.

Rant over :* (for now....)

[Tonkenna]

What a rather bizzare pi$$ing contest has ensued from the sad demise of a Sqn:confused:

Both the VC10 and the Tristar have their advantages and disadvantages and I am sure we could all argue til we are blue in the face, however; the point here must be that we are loosing capability no mater what aircraft get chopped up. And anyway, ultimatly the 3* will be replaced in a similar timescale to the 10 cause they are old and knackered as well.

There is no quick solution to the problem, but the delays and quibbling around FSTA are not helping. If this government is serious about using its armed forces around the world in the manner its using us at the moment it has to put its (our!!) money where its mouth is.

It will be a sad day when we finally loose the 10, it has served the RAF very well over the last 40 years, and I have no doubt it will continue to do so for the next 8-10 to.....?

We do, however, need a new tanker... very very soon.

In the meantime lets calm down the squabling and name calling and all look forward to a great party in October (when I have no doubt I will be down route!!!:rolleyes: :ugh: )

Tonks

[bosskite]

One line of analysis as to why 3 ac are being removed from the fleet suggests it to be a case of tail wagging dog, driven by the much-heralded new ‘forward-depth’ construct for support activities.

No longer 1st-4th line, but ‘forward’ equating to old 1st line plus the bits of 2nd line that might need to be deployed, and the remainder in ‘depth’ where the likes of the Baron of Preston Market is being contracted to call the shots.

Under ‘fwd-depth’, DARA St Athan (as a sub of BAES in this case) is becoming the centre of gravity for all VC10 depth activity. As a consequence, the 2 Minor/Minor Star tracks in Base Hangar are closing with the activity being transferred to St Athan where there is always a single VC10 on Major. However, for our masterfully efficient Lancastrian industrial partner’s business plan to return a profit, the current 3 tracks of maintenance activity have to be squeezed into 2.

Two tracks was always going to be a (very) tight fit with no margin for reality and detail being built in until he had a signed contract in his pocket. With this achieved, our pie-eating aerospace specialists were always going to look for the first ‘get out of jail’ opportunity (‘that’s business, folks’). Perhaps the consequences of the most recent OSD change (i.e. having to do full majors for longer) has provided just that.

So, should we pay BAES a shed load more to run a third track (no money), keep the 2nd/3rd line split as it currently is (upsets the fwd-depth applecart), or cut 3 ac from the fleet and massage the capability equation?

Oh, and by the way, there are about 100 blue suiters surplus to requirements knocking around Base Hangar at the moment. There’s logic for you!!

BK

[Roguedent]

Bosskite and all others on this thread,

Tonkenna is right, I have been, but have now finished my pi$$ing contest, so lets get this thread back to the title, 10 SQN DISBANDMENT, not another debate about FSTA and the tanker fleets.

Ta very much..

:ok:

[BEagle]

Agreed.

And all the best to everyone on Shiny Ten, past and present!

[6foottanker]

Sorry, dad. Scolded and anger no longer venting!

[Canadian Muppet]

Ah, the fond memories of working on “10’s” , down route and at YYR. The helpful aircrew, the friendly loadies and stewards. The team atmosphere that 10 Sqn help foster with the movers and MAMS teams.

Pity none of it was true. I’m sure I won’t be the only mover, past and present, who will be glad to see the back of 10 Sqn and their extremely bad attitude.
I think back at my time serving and working with 10 Sqn and I can’t remember a single positive incident. I can remember numerous negative ones. Unlike my time with the Lyneham herc squadrons which was (mostly) a very positive experience.



Unfortunately that is how 10 Sqn will be remembered by movers. The sad thing is the aircrew who consistently treated the airmen/women so badly probably didn’t give a toss then or now. True team players.

A sad epitaph indeed.

[Specaircrew]

Probably something to do with the frustration of finding out how many Movers can't grasp the concept of LOAD BAGS, LOAD PAX, UNLOAD PAX, UNLOAD BAGS! :-)

[fatter albert]

For a change, the retirement of the 3 frames was not driven by cost cuts. The trouble is no VC10 spares have been manufactured since about 1910 and stocks have simply run out. The critical thing this time is engines; there just aren't any left and we are trying anything we can to extend the life of the various subassemblies with limited success. Production of major Conway parts ended about 25 years ago and no more will ever be made (it was the first turbofan to ever be fitted to an airliner, after all).

The reason for withdrawing the K4s is they (like the K2s) were the ex-BOAC ones with millions of hours on them. Also, as they approached the end of their BOAC life, the airline cut back on overhauls in order to keep them airworthy just until they left airline service. The K4s were also stored at Abingdon for ages following their retirment as they were not initially required by the RAF. Consequently they were not in particularly good condition when the conversion was started (fair bit of corrosion etc). Then of course the conversion was not exactly a roaring success, which didn't help.

The K3s are the ex-East African Airways aircraft that entered RAF service with far fewer hours. That particular airline didn't look after them all that well (we still find evidence of some pretty amusing wiring attempts every now and then), but the airframes are still in much better condition than the K2s and K4s. Also, they were subjected to a much more comprehensive overhaul and upgrade programme when they entered RAF service with strengthening of the cabin floor and introduction of fuselage tanks etc. The K4 upgrade programme was done much more cheaply as the aircraft was only supposed to plug the gap between the Victor and the VC10 replacement, which at the time was due much sooner than turned out to be the case.

The upshot is, we don't have enough engines for the fleet, so some will have to retire early to keep the others going. It is a similar story to the retirment of the K2s five years ago, but we have now run out of all the bits that we recovered then. Hopefully this will let us keep the VC10 going until it gets replaced.

One excellent, fantastic, wonderful thing about all this is the fact that the VC10 engineers will be taken out of Eng Wg and given to the boss of 101 Sqn. Best news ever!

[6foottanker]

Muppet, go away, there's a reason this is an aircrew forum.

If you read the rest of the posts, you'll have realised we've done the banter thing, and now have been encouraged to stick to the subject in hand.

So if you haven't got anything helpful to say, I suggest you go back to your forever- 'broken' calculator, or your retirement.

:suspect:

[MechGov]

I'm aircrew. I'm also sorry to say that I have yet to meet someone from VC10s that wasn't consumed with their own self importance. 6foot...we must have met

[Tonkenna]

I have yet to meet someone from VC10s that wasn't consumed with their own self importance

MechGov... we obviously have not met:)

Tonks:ok:

[FFP]

Whoa whoa whoa !!!

Don't forget that although 10 Sqn is disbanding, they all become 101 Sqn. So any personalities that were a "problem" on 10 will then be on 101.

Canadian Muppet, I am sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how long ago the incidents you refer to happened, but the old days of "shiny 10" I feel have gone. Certainly in more recent times the distinction between sqns has been less, and they fly as mixed sqn crews. The new 10 and 101 sqn are in my opinion professional, helpful and will go to great lenghts to get the job done. But your experiences may be valid, and that's a shame.

The becoming of a single sqn is good news for those on VC10s.

[Canadian Muppet]

A sixfoot, there it goes again.........the old arrogance we love!

Nice to see some of our lords, masters and leaders remain true to form.

I will now go meekly, never to read an elite aircrew forum again, back to my movers gutter and eat turnips......god bless yer guv!

Thankfully there are still lots of good troops wearing brevets. Pity you still have a good chunk of egotistical types such as sixfoot.

The real world awaits.

My regards to those aircrew who believe the RAF is a team. Those officers will always command our respect.

Swift to Move, Per Ardua.

[moggiee]

Bugger off - you probably deserved it!

In my experience on 10Sqn and in Ops at MPA the biggest problems we experienced occured between the opening of the front door of the terminal and the closing of the aircraft door.

[D-IFF_ident]

I used to be on 10 Sqn and I'm fantastic. :)

[Tonkenna]

Canadian Muppet... whilst I don't neccessarily agree with 6', I am not sure what you expect on this forum... it is after all primarily a Pilot forum. If there is a movers forum I am not sure what reception we would have if we said such inflamitary remarks.

I am afraid that even in your world there are good and bad. I have gone out of my way to thank those who have done a good job... likewise I have made sure those who have done a bad job know why I am not happy. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by your comments. I suggest that, if you have a complaint, you take it up with the captain at the time and not here, in public and behind the aninimity of this board... it fixes nothing having a go on proone in this manner and is just a little childish, fishing for equally daft replies.

Tonks

[brakedwell]

Positioning courtesy of Ten Squadron in the sixties and early seventies spawned descriptions like Dietair and Desert in the Sky. The cabin service left a lot to be desired. Ration Box anybody?

[Widger]

Actually,


It is NOT a pilot's forum.....It is a Military AIRCREW forum.....two winged master race and all that!!!!:ok:

[Tonkenna]

Pofessional Pilots Rumour Network:ok:

However, I accept that includes aircrew of all types... others, however, should accept that they will receive banter (even childish banter;) ) when they post rubbish.

Sadly the food issue has not changed much... but that is not a Sqn problem. Having just flown with the nice people at Air Atlanta to MPA it is very bizzare sitting in a nice Club Class seat eating a plain ham roll (1 slice of ham... nothing else) and cheap crisps whilst drinking orange squash... ahhhh the joys of cheap inflight catering:ok:

Tonks:)

[brakedwell]

Widger
Did they tell you Martians the story about the 10 Sqn Prickett Rings of Confidence, or were you still in solar nappies then?

[Widger]

Baked Potato,

I was at the Main Gate when you were on Cow and Gate....or any other manufacturer of child food products!



:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[brakedwell]

Widgit
I wish it were so, but then you wouldn't have seen me as I was always waved through the main gate in the good old days, even without the benefit of a Prickett Ring of Confidence - if you are old enough to know what I mean..

[USasBRIEFED]

Sorry to see 10 Sqn go, but prehaps it should now be 10 decimal 1 Sqn and that would keep everyone happy. Also very sad to see this thread hijacked by some for standard slanging matches. So............. in an attempt to lighten the mood heres a little story about how wonderful some officers can be..............................



FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.